Q: Chouette cube rules
Finn Vidar Larsen
hello,
I have a question on doubling in chouette play. In a multi-cube game,
each player of the team controls his own separate cube, and each
team-member makes individual cubing decisions. But what happens if
one player doubles the box, and the box drops? Has the box then lost
all games? For if it isn't a take from one player, it should not be
a take from other players, thus all players double the box with no risk.
Or doesn't the box have the option to drop? Do people
actually play multi-cube chouettes, or is it more common to play
with only one cube, the team cubing as one?
Another related question; is it the case that the box makes individual
bets against each player on the team, regardless of the number of cubes
used? So for instance, with a $1 base-bet, 3 team players, and a single cube
reaching 4 with the box losing, the box has to pay $1*3*4 = $12 ?
I am a beginner in BG, but have found the chouette an excellent way
to play with friends, getting them interested in BG.
--
%%Vidar Larsen, PVV, FSAF/F-IT, <http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~fvlarsen/>
/a{def}def/t{translate}a/r{rotate}a/d{dup}a/M{exch}a/m{moveto}a/f{0 0
m d 0 M lineto 0 M t}a /s{d 1 gt{d f 60 r d 3 div k 60 r d f}{d 3 mul
f} ifelse}a /k{s -120 r s pop} a 162 -30 50 200 t r k stroke showpage
James Eibisch
On 5 Jul 1996 09:09:44 GMT, fvla...@iq.pvv.ntnu.no (Finn Vidar Larsen)
wrote:
>I have a question on doubling in chouette play. In a multi-cube game,
>each player of the team controls his own separate cube, and each
>team-member makes individual cubing decisions. But what happens if
>one player doubles the box, and the box drops? Has the box then lost
>all games? For if it isn't a take from one player, it should not be
>a take from other players, thus all players double the box with no risk.
>Or doesn't the box have the option to drop? Do people
>actually play multi-cube chouettes, or is it more common to play
>with only one cube, the team cubing as one?
The way our club plays is that cubes are owned, made, and taken
individually. The player concedes the box only if he loses against the
captain, whether that be by losing to him or by dropping his cube.
A common tactic for keeping the box in bad positions, therefore, is to
drop all players but take the captain's cube. The box keeps his losses
down, but sacrifices minimal losses for the chance to keep the box.
>Another related question; is it the case that the box makes individual
>bets against each player on the team, regardless of the number of cubes
>used? So for instance, with a $1 base-bet, 3 team players, and a single cube
>reaching 4 with the box losing, the box has to pay $1*3*4 = $12 ?
I don't think this can be the case if a single cube is used. In fact, I
can't imagine chouettes being very much fun if the team is forced to
play with a 'consensus cube'.
--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://www.i-way.co.uk/~jeibisch/
=======
Bruce McIntyre
>I don't think this can be the case if a single cube is used. In fact, I
>can't imagine chouettes being very much fun if the team is forced to
>play with a 'consensus cube'.
I can't imagine chouettes being much fun with multiple cubes. Inevitably the
cubes will go back and forth in a wild game to the point where half of the
cubes will be on the box's side and half on the team's side. Now all play
decisions are based not on one cube position, but a consensus of all the cubes!
Why not just have one cube, accept that it's essentially box vs captain, and
if you're far down the line and REALLY want to double, buy the captain's game
from him and double for him. (A rule that says that the captain selling his
game for the OPENING double gets another shot at the box in the next game works
nicely here.)
--Bruce McIntyre
Julian
> >I have a question on doubling in chouette play. In a multi-cube game,
> >each player of the team controls his own separate cube, and each
> >team-member makes individual cubing decisions. But what happens if
> >one player doubles the box, and the box drops? Has the box then lost
> >all games? For if it isn't a take from one player, it should not be
> >a take from other players, thus all players double the box with no risk.
It's not risk free. If one player doubles and the box drops, while the
rest play on, the box still has a roll to pull out a fluke shot and
save his skin against the rest. The team would probably cash next roll,
but they *might* not be in a position to.
Of course I am assuming that the team have to commit themselves to
playing on before the box announces his decision to drop...
Single cube games are a lot more dangerous - all you need is a steamer
to get the captaincy with you powerless in the team to hold the cube
down!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julian Hayward jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
'Booles' on FIBS +44-1344-640656
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Police are trying to trace the owner of a snack after a
Surrey motorist found it coiled round his leg. The American
corn snack is not believed to be dangerous."
- Ceefax News
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raccoon
fvla...@iq.pvv.ntnu.no (Finn Vidar Larsen) writes:
>I have a question on doubling in chouette play. In a multi-cube game,
>each player of the team controls his own separate cube, and each
>team-member makes individual cubing decisions.
For better or worse, single cube chouettes seem to be out of favor,
perhaps especially in smaller stakes games. Multiple cubes give the
stronger sharks ... I mean players ... more control and equity (for
example, the games in which you win one point while your 'teammates' lose
eight), while the additional cubing decisions and resulting confusion
appeal to wild and crazy gamblers.
You probably learn more with multiple cubes -- about board positions and
psychological quirks. And it's fun when a box double results in two drops,
three takes and a beaver. (: I remember an eight player chouette in which
a certain Mr Steam, a team member, doubled on the second roll, the box
naturally beavered and Mr Steam raccooned. Later, following a play
decision by the captain, who ignored Mr Steam's cry that "you must make my
play -- my cube is on 8 !" -- the box doubled. Mr Steam was disgusted and
declined the 16 cube. The rest of us were happy to take on 2 and naturally
went on to win 4 points each.
>But what happens if
>one player doubles the box, and the box drops? Has the box then lost
>all games?
No. Whenever a player cubes, the box and captain should pause until all
players have acted *or* indicated that they are not cubing. If only one
player cubes, then the box is free to drop that cube and continue the
game.
>For if it isn't a take from one player, it should not be
>a take from other players ..
Right. It's likely that someone has made a mistake -- the box, the cubing
player or the non-cubing players. Another possibility is that the box has
dropped a takable cube from a player she fears, because many chouettes
have a rule that only players whose cubes have been turned may consult
with the captain on checker play decisions.
There seem to be as many combinations of chouette rules as there are
chouettes. Multiple cube chouettes pose additional rules complications that
should be addressed before play is started. For example, if
everyone cubes the box, how many cubes must the box take? (All, majority,
half, any, one?) Are extras permitted or mandatory? Can the box cube one
player at a time or must she cube all at once? And if all, how many
players must take for the game to continue? Does this apply to the
first cube or to recubes also? etc, etc, etc.
>Another related question; is it the case that the box makes individual
>bets against each player on the team, regardless of the number of cubes
>used? So for instance, with a $1 base-bet, 3 team players, and a single cube
>reaching 4 with the box losing, the box has to pay $1*3*4 = $12 ?
Yes. The box has lost 12 points, four to each player, and is out $12.
Whether you are playing single or multiple cubes doesn't matter.
>I am a beginner in BG, but have found the chouette an excellent way
>to play with friends, getting them interested in BG.
Absolutely. And an excellent way to improve your game.
___________________________________________________________________
/Raccoon
(alias Daniel Murphy and not an official member of the parRAT club)
Albert Steg
In article <4rlf51$k...@aphex.direct.ca>, mcb...@direct.ca (Bruce
McIntyre) wrote:
> I can't imagine chouettes being much fun with multiple cubes. Inevitably the
> cubes will go back and forth in a wild game to the point where half of the
> cubes will be on the box's side and half on the team's side. Now all play
> decisions are based not on one cube position, but a consensus of all the
cubes!
Clearly, you haven't tried out multiple cubes in practice. In practice,
the situation of having doubled cubes on both sides of the table is quite
rare. Moreover, when such situations arise they are *more* interesting,
not less. Remember that all cube decisions are up to individuals, so the
"concensus of all the cubes" comment you make doesn't make much sense.
When using separate cubes, it is often highly instructive to see ho
"early" doublers on the captains side fare in comparison to more
conservative teammates.
If you find "cubes going back and forth in a wild game," you stand to
gaijn a great deal of equity if you are a strong player. It is true that
weaker players can lose their $ faster in a "separate cubes" chouette.
> Why not just have one cube, accept that it's essentially box vs captain, and
> if you're far down the line and REALLY want to double, buy the captain's game
> from him and double for him.
1) Because this practice can lead to some really bitter arguments and
resentment between players on the team.
2) Because many players will find the whole "buying the captain;s cube" a
confusing concept.
3) Because the practice *can* encourage collusion between some dishonest
players who agree to split their net winnings/losses with each other.
Think it over.
4) Because separate cubes actually leads to more interesting cube actions,
given the different doubling/dropping thresholds of various players.
Knowledge of each opponent's practices and acuity is rewarded.
Albert
Bruce McIntyre
In article <836665...@ratbag.demon.co.uk>, jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk says...
>Single cube games are a lot more dangerous - all you need is a steamer
>to get the captaincy with you powerless in the team to hold the cube
>down!
Isn't it more or less standard for the captain to be allowed (and encouraged)
to buy the timid lower-down's share if the lower-down REALLY doesn't want to go
along with the double? So if there are four against the box and the last guy
in line doesn't want to double to $2, the captain says OK, I'll pay you $1 for
your game. The lower-down doesn't lose his place in the line, and the captain
now has his share and the lower-down's. what's the problem?
--Bruce McIntyre
Bruce McIntyre
In article <asteg-06079...@asteg.tiac.net>, as...@tiac.net says...
We used to play a friendly chouette on monthly Friday nights at the bridge club
after the duplicate game ended. Friendly, a quarter a point, lots of doubling,
single cube--you couldn't lose a whole lot if you tried. Eventually the sharks
invaded, added the multiple cubes, which led to games where the captain would
play for the gammon, enraging guys further on down whose cubes were 32 times
his and wanted to play safe for the win, and finally breaking up when one
fed-up captain paid his dues and left in mid-game, complaining that he could
not play anymore as it took ten minutes per move for all the doubles to be
decided. See, some of us don't WANT to play chouette as a fee to learn from
the better players; or, to be more specific, we don't want to see the fee for
such lessons increased. This invariably happens with multiple cubes. Friendly
players will continue to play simple chouette--it's one game, boards come with
one doubling cube, not six. Let the sharks play "whacko" chouette with
doubling cubes all over the table. I'll stick to single-cube chouette.
I don't see #1 above, don't agree with #2 (as long as the rules are clear to
everyone beforehand), can say to #3 that nobody gets in my chouette unless
everyone agrees, and #4 may be true, but when the captain plays for a gammon
and loses a game for 2 he could have won and your cube is at 64 I would not
call that interesting.
--Bruce McIntyre
Raccoon
mcb...@direct.ca (Bruce McIntyre) writes:
>We used to play a friendly chouette on monthly Friday nights at the
>bridge club after the duplicate game ended. Friendly, a quarter a point,
>lots of doubling,
That's nice.
>single cube--you couldn't lose a whole lot if you tried. Eventually the
>sharks invaded, added the multiple cubes,
Emaciated sharks, invading a quarter a point game. LOL
>one doubling cube, not six. Let the sharks play "whacko" chouette with
>doubling cubes all over the table. I'll stick to single-cube chouette.
Got a buddy who would say, "If that's a take, the stakes aren't high
enough."
>but when the captain plays for a gammon
>and loses a game for 2 he could have won and your cube is at 64 I would not
>call that interesting.
I might not call it backgammon, either. Why the hell is your cube on 64?
On the other hand, with a 64 cube at a mere 25 cents per point, you're
playing for $16 a game (not counting gammons) in your so-called "friendly
chouette".
/Raccoon
________________
Daniel Murphy
San Francisco CA
Julian
> I don't see #1 above, don't agree with #2 (as long as the rules are clear to
> everyone beforehand), can say to #3 that nobody gets in my chouette unless
> everyone agrees, and #4 may be true, but when the captain plays for a gammon
> and loses a game for 2 he could have won and your cube is at 64 I would not
> call that interesting.
It cuts both ways. If the captain in a single-cube game cranked my cube
for me up to 64 and then goes for the untenable gammon, I would be
even more pissed off. At least in a multi-cube game it's *my* decision
whether to start the cube rolling when I don't trust the captain to
do the right thing.
michael rochman
rac...@netcom.com (Raccoon) wrote:
>I might not call it backgammon, either. Why the hell is your cube on 64?
>On the other hand, with a 64 cube at a mere 25 cents per point, you're
>playing for $16 a game (not counting gammons) in your so-called "friendly
>chouette".
Dan,
ROTFL....I must have missed the last part of his message.
As you implied, it ain't quite quarters, but it ain't quite
dimes either.
Mike
STLGuy on FIBS, MikeRochman, on other servers
michael rochman
mcb...@direct.ca (Bruce McIntyre) wrote:
>Eventually the sharks
>invaded, added the multiple cubes, which led to games where the captain would
>play for the gammon, enraging guys further on down whose cubes were 32 times
>his and wanted to play safe for the win,
Bruce,
I don't mean to sound incredulous, but I've been playing
backgammon for fun and for stakes, large and small, for the
better part of 20 years.
I have yet to see a 32 cube from either side of the table.
It's certainly possible to show examples of situations that
might lead to such a cube, it's just highly unlikely the
event will happen.
Back to the thread: I wouldn't consider playing a chouette
without multiple cubes.
mike
STLguy on FIBS, MikeRochman on other two servers
Albert Steg
>>>> We used to play a friendly chouette on monthly Friday nights at the
bridge club after the duplicate game ended. Friendly, a quarter a point,
lots of doubling, single cube--you couldn't lose a whole lot if you
tried. Eventually the sharks invaded, added the multiple cubes, which led
to games where the captain would play for the gammon, enraging guys
further on down whose cubes were 32 times his and wanted to play safe for
the win, and finally breaking up when one fed-up captain paid his dues and
left in mid-game, complaining that he could not play anymore as it took
ten minutes per move for all the doubles to be decided. <<<<<<
Geez, if you're gettin 32 cubes very often in your chouette, you should probably
play for somewhat higher stakes so that your cube action comes down to
earth. Given your situation, though, I still don't see that single cubes
would make for less conflict. As a team member I would surely be outraged
to find that that freewheeling captain had cranked up our only cube to the
32-level. Does that not happen?
See, some of us don't WANT to play chouette as a fee to learn from
> the better players; or, to be more specific, we don't want to see the fee for
> such lessons increased. This invariably happens with multiple cubes.
Okay. I can certainly see that.
Friendly
> players will continue to play simple chouette--it's one game, boards
come with
> one doubling cube, not six.
I object to your implicit suggestion that those of us who use multiple
cubes are somehow "unfriendly." I enjoy multiple-cube chouettes with a
variety of well-informed adults, some of whom are stronger than I, and
some weaker.
>Let the sharks play "whacko" chouette with
> doubling cubes all over the table. I'll stick to single-cube chouette.
Ironically, the surest way to encourage "whacko" cube action is to play
for "friendly" stakes as you describe "quarter a point -- lots of
doubling." In our multiple-cube chouettes, usually playing a moderate
$5/pt, it's *rare* for cubes to get beyond 4. If you play for a stake that
matters but doesn't cripple, cube action gets much tighter.
>. . . when the captain plays for a gammon and loses a game for 2 he could
have >won and your cube is at 64 I would not call that interesting.
Well, the kind of thing you describe has *never* happened in my
experience. It is not a necessary result of using separate cubes.
No one will force you to change your "friendly" chouette -- but please
don't imply that those of use (vast majority) who use multiple cubes are
sharks trying to get into your game and ruin your fun.
Albert
Albert Steg
> Isn't it more or less standard for the captain to be allowed (and encouraged)
> to buy the timid lower-down's share if the lower-down REALLY doesn't
want to go
> along with the double? So if there are four against the box and the last guy
> in line doesn't want to double to $2, the captain says OK, I'll pay you
$1 for
> your game. The lower-down doesn't lose his place in the line, and the
captain
> now has his share and the lower-down's. what's the problem?
Wow! Maybe I *do* want to invade your chouette! You'll pay me a full
point to take over my 1-cube in a position that I don't even think is a
double?
Sign me up!
Albert
Bob Koca
mcb...@direct.ca (Bruce McIntyre) wrote:
>In article <836665...@ratbag.demon.co.uk>, jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk says...
>>Single cube games are a lot more dangerous - all you need is a steamer
>>to get the captaincy with you powerless in the team to hold the cube
>>down!
>Isn't it more or less standard for the captain to be allowed (and encouraged)
>to buy the timid lower-down's share if the lower-down REALLY doesn't want to go
>along with the double? So if there are four against the box and the last guy
>in line doesn't want to double to $2, the captain says OK, I'll pay you $1 for
>your game. The lower-down doesn't lose his place in the line, and the captain
>now has his share and the lower-down's. what's the problem?
>--Bruce McIntyre
The problem is that $1 may not at all be the fair price.
Consider for example the position of 4 on the ace point on turn
versus one on the 2 and one on the 5 point.
Even though the on turn player is barely the favorite it is correct to
redouble although holding the cube costs little in terms of equity.
Suppose that of the captain's two partners one says I don't want
to double and I'll take half if you do. If the captain is obliged to
buy out the dissenting player for half it is no longer optimal for
him to redouble. Your rule forces the captain to do the wrong equity
backgammon move.
Even worse suppose it is a situation where the correct value of the
game is less than half the cube. All the players agrree with doubling
until the last one. He realizes that unlike the previous position it
will still be correct for the captain to double even if it forces him
to pay out the too high half the cube as a settlement. The last player
could make more money by stating "I don't agree with the double and
will take half." even though he knows it is correct to double and
actually would want to double if that vulturing opportunity were not
available.
Bob Koca
bobk on FIBS
John Graas
Could you please explain how "extras" work?
John
rac...@netcom.com (Raccoon) wrote:
[snip]
>There seem to be as many combinations of chouette rules as there are
>chouettes. Multiple cube chouettes pose additional rules complications that
>should be addressed before play is started. For example, if
>everyone cubes the box, how many cubes must the box take? (All, majority,
>half, any, one?) Are extras permitted or mandatory? Can the box cube one
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>player at a time or must she cube all at once? And if all, how many
>players must take for the game to continue? Does this apply to the
>first cube or to recubes also? etc, etc, etc.
[snip]
>___________________________________________________________________
>/Raccoon
>(alias Daniel Murphy and not an official member of the parRAT club)
"Have Laptop -- Will Travel"
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Albert Steg
In article <31e15fee...@news.anet-stl.com>, mroc...@anet-stl.com
(michael rochman) wrote:
> rac...@netcom.com (Raccoon) wrote:
>
> >I might not call it backgammon, either. Why the hell is your cube on 64?
> >On the other hand, with a 64 cube at a mere 25 cents per point, you're
> >playing for $16 a game (not counting gammons) in your so-called "friendly
> >chouette".
> ROTFL....I must have missed the last part of his message.
> As you implied, it ain't quite quarters, but it ain't quite
> dimes either.
Reminds me of a player out in Harvard Square who didn't want to play a
chouette with a friend and I for our usual $5 stake -- too rich for his
blood -- so we agree on $3/pt. The first time he gets into the box we
roll doubles and he cranks both cubes to 2, as our rules allow the box to
do. We usually stop at one auto, but when we rolled another set we
allowed him to crank them to 4. On a third pair my partner drew the line
but I allowed him to flip mine to 8. At this point the guy is playing for
the equivalent of $3 x (8+4) = $36/pt for this game. So the game begins,
he gets into a bad position and wrongly accepts a gammonish cube --"Just
for fun", I suppose --after all, we're *only* playing for 3's, right?
He gets rightly gammonned and loses $3 x 2(16+8) = $144 in a single game.
My guess is that if we had been playing for 5's, (1) he wouldn't have gone
beyond one auto and (2) he would've dropped our double, resulting in (3) a
savings of $124.
...so sometimes the "friendly" stake can be a "costly" stake.
Albert
Bruce McIntyre
Oh dear. Looks like in my attempt to defend "original" chouette I
inadvertently labelled multi-cube players as "unfriendly." Not my intention,
of course. Forgive me. It seems that my limited experience (and lack of guts
and money to play for real stakes) led me to the conclusion that multi-cube
chouettes are for the purpose of extracting money from less-than-perfect
players like me. Anyhow, I see that single-cube chouettes have problems. I
admit it! Y'all've convinced me! Well done. Now let's continue this
fascinating thread and talk some more about chouettes and hope the folks at
Games Grid are listening as they program new features into their software...
--Bruce McIntyre
michael rochman
as...@tiac.net (Albert Steg) wrote:
>...so sometimes the "friendly" stake can be a "costly" stake.
Albert..
So true. We each have a comfort zone for stakes, whether the
game be backgammon, poker, bridge, gin or whatever.
I find myself not paying close attention if the stakes are
so far below my comfort zone as to render them meaningless
to me. While, I find stakes sufficiently above my comfort
zone to cause me to make some poor decisions.
An interesting aside, affordability often has little or
nothing to do with a persons comfort zone. I've seen guys
play with grocery money and not bat an eye, while I've seen
guys shy from $1 per pt backgammon who could easily afford
to lose a G.
Setting stakes is an interesting part of every game...
Regards, Mike
MikeRochman on CG and NG, STLGuy on FIBS
Albert Steg
In article <Du94C...@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.ATTGIS.COM>,
71242...@compuserve.com (John Graas) wrote:
> Could you please explain how "extras" work?
A player accepts a double. Some other player or players think he should
have dropped, so they offer to pay the fellow a point to take an "extra"
cube. Basically, they are saying "Do you *really* think it's a take? Care
to back it up by putting a little more $ on it?"
Paying a person a point to take a 2-cube is the standard way of setting up
a "proposition" on a take/drop disagreement. You can copy down the
position and play it over and over again. In the long run, the player who
is on the "right side" of the prop will make $.
One can always offer an extra whenever a dubious take occurs. Some people
like to make agreements that "extras" must be accepted whenever offered --
the most recent issue of _Inside Backgammon_ makes this recommendation.
Basically, the practice punishes cube errors more intensely, so the
stronger player should be able to make considerably more money.
A good use of mandatory extras in chouettes is to require a captain to
accept an extra from at least one teammate if he is the only one who
wishes to take when the box doubles the field. This punishes "box takes"
that often leave two or three players sitting around waiting for a
needless game to be played out --and if the captain was right to take, he
benefits from his teammates' error. Most importantly, it keeps more
people in the game, and allows everyone to stand by their own judgment
without penalty.
Albert